With the support of politically enemy-turned-friend House Oversight Chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Rep. Eric Cantor(R-Virg.) was compelled to promise to shelve any potential vote in the Republican-controlled House in terms of passing SOPA. It was finally over -- the months of populist protest online, media criticism, and criticism from the online industry's top innovators like Google Inc. (GOOG) had paid off. They had won.

Or so they thought. On Monday support SOPA rose up from the dead, after Rep. Lamar Smith (R- Tex.) -- the bill's author in the House of Representatives -- said he would bring the bill to the floor for minor revisions and a February vote. That led to the largest online protest that America has ever seen with tens of millions of Americans taking to the internet to post protest message, email their representatives, call their representatives, and sign petitions.

But even yesterday Rep. Smith -- whose office had done its fair share of copyright infringing -- was quoted as dismissing his constituents protest as a "publicity stunt" and vowing to ignore the people and bring the bill to vote.

II. Cornered, SOPA Meets Its End (For Now)

But on Friday afternoon a weay Rep. Smith took to the internet, tail tucked and admitted defeat, agreeing for the first time to shelve the bill. The key word is he used is "postponed". So it's fair to say SOPA is dead, but if you've ever played Resident Evil or watched South Park SOPA is a bit like Wesker or Kenny -- it may be dead -- but it will likely return next episode.

The problem of online piracy is too big to ignore. American intellectual property industries provide 19 million high-paying jobs and account for more than 60 percent of U.S. exports. The theft of America’s intellectual property costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually and results in the loss of thousands of American jobs. Congress cannot stand by and do nothing while American innovators and job creators are under attack.

The online theft of American intellectual property is no different than the theft of products from a store. It is illegal and the law should be enforced both in the store and online.

The Committee will continue work with copyright owners, Internet companies, financial institutions to develop proposals that combat online piracy and protect America’s intellectual property. We welcome input from all organizations and individuals who have an honest difference of opinion about how best to address this widespread problem. The Committee remains committed to finding a solution to the problem of online piracy that protects American intellectual property and innovation.

The numbers are debatable, but Rep. Smith is right on one key issue -- online piracy is an issue that needs to be addressed in some form. Whether it should be big media finding easier ways to distribute content legally online, such as challenging Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) exclusivity contracts and bullying, which limit the number of legal distribution outlets, or the government finding a way to balance the rights of intellectual property holders with the people's right to reasonable justice, there's certainly cause to look for level-handed solutions in the public and private sector.

But at the same time Rep. Smith's statement is problematic as it couples two very different issues -- domestic piracy (sharing copyrighted works illegally via torrents, P2P, streaming, etc.) and foreign piracy.

Foreign piracy is already a vast sea to navigate on, as it includes everything from stealing proprietary chipmaking technique from American fabs or engine part design from American fighter jets to your everyday bazaar merchant selling phony DVD copies of popular American films. These kinds of abuses needs to be addressed, but in recent years Congress and the White House have essentially meekly bowed to China -- arguably the biggest single infringer of American goods -- afraid to speak up against it.

So when Rep. Lamar Smith talks about fighting foreign piracy, that's great but SOPA and Congress's past actions have done scant little to challenge infringer nations like China. What they have done a whole lot to impose Orwellian takedown on the internet and punitive punishment on the American people.

III. Federal Bribery Must be Stopped

All of the piracy debate also overshadows a far greater base issue -- the allowance of blatant bribery in American federal politics.

Anti-streaming lobbyists paid an estimated 10 percent of all active U.S. Senators' combined election costs ($86M USD) and an unspecified amount (like in the high tens to low hundreds of millions of dollars) to the U.S. Congress, according to extensive research. It's nice to see this kind of blatant bribery attempt fail for once.

But the real issue here is that if the bribery was smaller and the "bought" legislation didn't involve dramatic erosions of rights and free enterprise that SOPA did, the American people probably would have ignored it -- in fact that's what they been doing for a good couple decades now, as lobbying has grown into a flourishing mega-industry in the capital.

It's hard to get anything done in Washington these days without a bribe.
[Image Source: Google Images]

The end result is that while the American taxpayer and small business labor slavishly to pay their tax debt, the corporations with well-heeled lobbyists enjoy "tax holidays" and government grants. These are kickbacks for bribes, plain as day, but politicians pretty them up with softer speak.

A recent peer-reviewed research study by the University of Kansas' business school showed that for every $1 spent bribing politicians in Washington D.C., corporate donors get an estimated $222 USD in tax exemptions and other financial kickbacks. This bribery must be recognized and must be put to an end. It is anti-innovation. It is anti-freedom. It is anti-American.

It is a huge problem that Americans must address, as they look back on their victory over SOPA and big media special interests.

UPDATED:

PIPA, written by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) (very similar to the House's Republican-written SOPA) is also dead or delayed ("postponed"). In a press release Sen. Reid echoes the words of his Republican colleague, Rep. Smith, writing:

In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday’s vote on the PROTECT I.P. Act.

There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved. Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices. We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio.

I admire the work that Chairman Leahy has put into this bill. I encourage him to continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans’ intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet. We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks.

The only major difference between Sen. Reid's and Sen. Smith's commentary seems to be little tidbits of party-appropriate rhetoric, designed to pander to their base's sensibilities.

Sen. Reid's uses a "union" analogy, in an effort to sway Democrat voters, while Sen. Smith's focus on "foreign" threats and his vow to "work with... financial institutions" buzz words he clearly hopes will please his voters.

quote: And all of you seem to be REALLY confused about this ruling. The ruling did not disturb the ban on corporations donating directly to candidates. That hasn't been changed. You people, and the rabid Left in general, act as if this ruling opened up some kind of floodgate of corruption and bribery. Which is absurd and not accurate at all.

No, it didn't disturb the restrictions against direct contributions, but it did eliminate the restriction saying that a corporation could not use electioneering communications within 30 days of the election. When you say that it did not open up some kind of floodgate of corruption and bribery, you're right. The law didn't open the floodgate, but the floodgate was already open. Candidates are not stupid by any regard. They are well aware of the PACs that air these advertisements in the weeks preceding the election, and who owns the PACs. FECA and BCRA limited donations directly, but that just means that donations are essentially feed to candidates through the third party PACs who use the money to aid the candidates. We didn't eliminate corporate financing of elections, we just created a middle man that is supposed to make everyone feel better about the whole process.

quote: The ruling upheld the First Amendment. It didn't make them "people". And you know what, the ruling was correct. We don't just follow the Constitution when it's convenient or when there's no consequences. Barring corporations from political speech was wrong and illegal, plain and simple. Do you realize that's the MOST basic First Amendment principle? That the government has no business regulating political speech.

Part of the problem with Citizens United is that we assume corporations are a quasi-persons under the Constitution. The whole idea in Citizens United was that the Court viewed the corporation (or PAC) as a person representing other individuals who actually had a Constitutional right to freely express themselves. I don't think that is correct and I disagree with the decision because they effectively equate a non-profit organization focused on organizing political interests, such as the Constitutional or Communist Party (which is an association of people), with for-profit organizations such as GE and Merill Lynch. Simply creating a PAC and funneling corporate money into it does not change the fact that it is speech by a corporation.

A corporation is not equivalent to a person and shouldn't be treated as such because all corporations, which are a creature of statute, could cease to exist tomorrow, if the people so choose. You can't do the same thing with individuals.

Now I do understand the reasoning of the case, because it would otherwise create three classes of associations with different rules, corporate non-news, corporate news and social. It is sound reasoning, but I still think it is incorrect that they went that route with the decision.

quote: But I suppose you know more about the Constitution than 5 Supreme Court justices?

The Citizens United case overturned McConnell v. FEC. Furthermore, if this case had been heard back in 2005, it would have gone the exact opposite way and BCRA would have been upheld. So what does that say about the decision itself?

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer